Rating and Stats

Document Actions

Share or Embed Document

Three Principles for Market-based Credit Regulation

Perry Mehrling
Barnard College, Columbia University

December 31, 2011

Prepared for American Economic Association meeting, Chicago, January 7, 2012. I would like to thank
Aaron Brown, Tom Michl, Daniel Neilson, and Zoltan Pozsar for especially useful comments on an early
draft, as well as participants in seminars at the Brookings Institution, Boston University, Credit Suisse,
Fondation des Treilles, and the International Monetary Fund.
1

Over the last three decades, a new market-based credit system has grown up to become larger
than the traditional bank-based credit system, marking that achievement in 2007 with a financial crisis
of its very own.
1
Some say the crisis ǁĂƐ Ă ͞MŝŶƐŬǇ ŵŽŵĞŶƚ͟ ǁŚĞŶ ƚŚe inherent instability of credit--
market-based credit as well as bank-based credit--was revealed for all to see. While not necessarily
disagreeing with that formulation, I prefer to emphasize that ŝƚ ǁĂƐ Ă ͞8ĂŐĞŚŽƚ ŵŽŵĞŶƚ͟ ǁŚĞŶ ƚŚĞ Fed
was forced to put aside its inflation fine-tuning and go back to basics. In retrospect, it was the actions of
the Fed, more than anything else, that put a floor on the crisis. The Fed did this by catching collapsing
markets on its own balance sheet, first the wholesale money market and then the mortgage-backed
security market.
2
The question now arises how to avoid ever having to do so again.

I. Back to Basics
1ŚĞ ƐĞŵŝŶĂů ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶĐĞ ŽĨ 8ĂŐĞŚŽƚ͛Ɛ Lombard Street (1873) for shaping how we think about
these matters is agreed by all. The Bagehot Rule for handling financial crisis--͞ůĞŶĚ ĨƌĞĞůǇ ďƵƚ Ăƚ Ă ŚŝŐŚ
ƌĂƚĞ͟ͶǁĂƐ 8ĂŐĞŚŽƚ͛Ɛ ĂƚƚĞŵƉƚ ƚŽ ĚŝƐƚŝůů the principles of central bank practice as that practice had
developed organically over the previous fifty years. Today the Bagehot Rule is where everyone starts
when thinking about the role of the central bank, even if most of the subsequent discussion is about
how to avoid crisis in the first place: microprudential policy, stabilization policy, and now perhaps
macroprudential policy.
My concern about this near-universal framing of the problem is that the world Bagehot was
thinking about is, in crucial respects, not the world we are dealing with today. Bagehot was all about the
19
th
century money market; our new market-based credit system is about the 21
st
century integration of

1
l ĨŽůůŽǁ ÞŽǌƐĂƌ ;ϮϬϭϭͿ ŝŶ ƉƌĞĨĞƌƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƚĞƌŵ ͞ŵĂƌŬĞƚ-ďĂƐĞĚ ĐƌĞĚŝƚ ƐǇƐƚĞŵ͟ ŽǀĞƌ ͞ƐŚĂĚŽǁ ďĂŶŬŝŶŐ ƐǇƐƚĞŵ͘͟
2
Although my own account of the crisis focuses on the Fed (Mehrling 2011), a rounded understanding of
government response requires at a minimum also understanding the roles of the Treasury (Swagel 2009), the
Federal Home Loan Bank (Ferguson and Johnson 2009), the Congress (FCIC 2010, SIGTARP 2010), and even the
global dollar funding system (McGuire and von Peter 2009). In academic circles, Brunnermeier (2009), Gorton
(2010), and Krishnamurthy (2010) have become standard accounts.
2

the money market with the capital market. As a consequence, when the Fed went back to basics, it
found that it had to go beyond Bagehot.
SƚĂƌƚŝŶŐ ŝŶ AƵŐƵƐƚ ϮϬϬϳ͕ ƚŚĞ lĞĚ͛Ɛ ĨŝƌƐƚ ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐǇ ĨŽƌ ŚĂŶĚůŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĐƌŝƐŝƐ ǁĂƐ ƐŝŵƉůǇ ƚŽ ůŽǁĞƌ ƚŚĞ
Fed Funds rate, from 5% to 2%, i.e. standard, albeit aggressive, monetary easing. Iƚ ǁĂƐŶ͛ƚ ĞŶŽƵŐŚ.
Then, after the collapse of Bear Stearns in March 2008, the Fed embarked on a massive program of
Bagehot-style last-resort lending, liquidating much of its customary holdings of Treasury bills and bonds
and lending out the proceeds, not only to banks but also to broker-dealers. But that ǁĂƐŶ͛t enough
either.
After the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, and while the attention of most of
the world was focused elsewhere, the Fed expanded its balance sheet on both sides, offering itself as
counterparty to both sides of a wholesale (and global) money market that had frozen up. And then in
March 2009, as the money market had begun to recover, the Fed went even further, replacing its money
market lending with outright purchases of mortgage-backed securities, almost $1 trillion worth added to
a balance sheet that had been less than $1 trillion only six months before.
One lesson to draw from this experience is that, in modern conditions, the central bank serves
not merely as Bagehot-style lender of last resort but even more ĂƐ ͞ĚĞĂůĞƌ ŽĨ ůĂƐƚ ƌĞƐŽƌƚ͟. After Lehman,
in effect the Fed quoted a price at which it was willing to buy money and a price at which it was willing
to sell money͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞŶ ĂďƐŽƌďĞĚ ƚŚĞ ƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐ ŽƌĚĞƌ ĨůŽǁ ŽŶƚŽ ŝƚƐ ŽǁŶ ďĂůĂŶĐĞ ƐŚĞĞƚ͘ 1ŚĂƚ͛Ɛ ǁŚĂƚ
dealers do (Treynor 1987, Harris 2003). In modern finance theory, liquidity means the ability to buy or
sell, in size, without moving the price. In normal times, dealers supply this liquidity (make markets) by
offering trading options.
3
During the crisis, this normal supply broke down, and the Fed stepped in to fill
the gap.

In doing so, the Fed clearly went beyond the intentions of its century-old founders.
4
The mental
world of the founders was much more that of Bagehot, not the world of today; indeed they envisioned a
Fed confined entirely to the discount of commercial bills! However, the exigencies of war finance soon
forced widening of their mental horizons, as the new Fed instead started life by providing backstop for
the sale of Treasury debt. Subsequently, Depression and the Second World War further cemented the
centrality of Treasury debt markets in the U.S. financial system. When life finally settled down, the Fed
adapted to changed circumstances by conducting its operations primarily in those debt markets (FOMC
1952). In wartime, the Fed had acted as primary dealer for government debt; in peacetime, it handed
that role over to private security dealers.
The familiar distinction between market liquidity and funding liquidity (Brunnermeier and
Pedersen 2009) is useful for understanding the difference between central banking in wartime and in
peacetime.
5
In peacetime, private dealers supply market liquidity by quoting two-way markets, but their
ability to absorb the resulting order flow depends on their access to funding liquidity, specifically their
access to bank lending. In peacetime, therefore, central banks quite properly focus their attention
largely on funding liquidity, and on banks as suppliers of that funding liquidity, depending on private
dealers for reliable transmission of monetary intervention to the wider capital market. Under the stress
of wartime, however, the dealer transmission mechanism breaks down, so central banks take over the
job of supplying market liquidity (dealer of last resort) as well as funding liquidity (lender of last resort).
The key point is that what happened in the crisis of 2007 was analogous to what happens in
wartime. ͞uĞĂůĞƌ ŽĨ ůĂƐƚ ƌĞƐŽƌƚ͟ ǁĂƐ ŶŽƚ ŶĞǁ͖ ǁŚĂƚ ǁĂƐ ŶĞǁ ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞ ĞǆƚĞŶƐŝŽŶ ŽĨ ĚĞĂůer of last resort
from government securities to private mortgage-backed securities.

The reason this extension became necessary is not hard to find; it was a consequence of the
rising importance of market-based credit. In a bank-based credit system, funding liquidity and lender of
last resort is enough to ensure the continued flow of credit. A market-based credit system, however,
relies on market liquidity and hence ultimately on dealer of last resort to ensure the continued flow of
credit. Just as the Fed adapted, in its first fifty years, to the rise of a market-based system of
government credit, the Fed͛s present task is to adapt to the rise of a market-based system of private
credit. 1ŚĞ lĞĚ͛Ɛ ƐŚŝĨƚŝŶŐ ƌŽůĞ ĚƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĐƌŝƐŝƐ can be understood as the first steps toward that
adaptation.
While some few voices did warn of an unsustainable credit bubble before 2007, almost no one
anticipated that the collapse of the bubble would play out the way it did. Indeed, the market-based
credit system was widely supposed to be a way of taking risk off the balance sheet of banks, hence also
off the balance sheets of the FDIC (deposit guarantee) and the Fed (liquidity guarantee). By moving risk
into the capital market, bank deposits were supposed to be kept safe. By moving risk into the global
financial system, the domestic financial system was supposed to be kept safe.
But when money markets refused to roll their funding for the market-based credit system,
liquidity backstops in the traditional banking system got triggered, and as a result risk moved back on to
the balance sheets of banks. And when the problem proved too big for them to handle, the ultimate
liquidity backstop at the Fed got triggered as well. Contrary to expectation, the collapse of a capital
market credit bubble wound up threatening the safety and soundness of the traditional banking system
and so, again contrary to expectation, wound up on the balance sheet of the government.
lŶ ƚŚĞ ĂĨƚĞƌŵĂƚŚ͕ ƉŽůŝƚŝĐŝĂŶƐ ŚĂǀĞ ƐĂŝĚ ͞nĞǀĞƌ AŐĂŝŶ͕͊͟ ĂŶĚ uŽĚĚ-Frank (as well as Basel III) is
supposed to make sure of it, mainly with enhanced capital and liquidity requirements designed to
bolster the safety and soundness of the traditional banking system. Such measures largely ignore the
market-based credit system, even as they seem likely to ensure that the prohibited activities will move
5

outside the traditional banking system, which is to say into a newly revived market-based credit system.
The big challenge for regulation looking forward is therefore to grapple with that new system.

II. A Model of Market-Based Credit
What system of regulation would make sense if the market-based credit system were more or
less completely to replace the bank-based credit system?
To help in thinking about this question, Figure 1 shows a stylized picture of a market-based
credit system. To avoid misunderstanding, the figure it is not intended to be a map of the shadow
banking system circa 2007, nor even a stylized picture of that system (see Pozsar et al 2010 for the
former, Mehrling 2011 Ch. 6 for the latter). The shadow banking system was certainly a kind of market-
based credit system, but it was hardly fully developed and it was very much shaped by the traditional
banking system context within which it grew up. Furthermore, as a consequence of the crisis, many of
the key innovations of the shadow banking system are now gone forever, having failed to survive their
first major stress test. The shadow banking system as we knew it is thus gone, but the larger trend
toward a market-based credit system continues.

[Insert Figure 1 about here]

The Figure shows not so much what the shadow banking system actually looked like, but rather
what a possible market-based credit system might look like in the future.
6
Instead of the complicated

6
To avoid misunderstanding, the Figure is not intended to be a map of an entire possible future market-based
credit system, only the portion that is critical for the discussion that follows. Thus, I abstract on the one hand from
the familiar capital market in which long-term borrowers issue securities that are acquired by long-term investors,
i.e. the province of standard financial economics. And I abstract on the other hand from the familiar money
market, where banks and non-banks issue deposits and deposit substitutes to households and non-financial
corporations who seek money balances on one of the standard motives, i.e. the province of standard monetary
6

tranching of the actual shadow banking system, which served to strip risk out of the underlying
ŵŽƌƚŐĂŐĞ ůŽĂŶƐ͕ l͛ŵ ŝŵĂŐŝŶŝŶŐ Ă ĨƵƚƵƌĞ ͞Capital Funding Bank͟ ŝŶ ǁŚŝĐŚ all the risk stripping is done
using simple derivatives, Interest Rate Swaps and Credit Default Swaps. And instead of the complicated
system of capital buffers involving credit derivatives sold to hedge funds and insurance companies͕ l͛ŵ
imagining that all of the risk is transferred to an ͞Asset Manager͟ who uses simple derivatives in order
ƚŽ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞ ŚŝƐ ĚĞƐŝƌĞĚ ƌŝƐŬ ĞǆƉŽƐƵƌĞ͘ 1ŚĞ ͞Capital Funding Bank͟ ŝƐ ƚŚƵƐ the mirror image of the ͞AƐƐĞƚ
MĂŶĂŐĞƌ͟ ŶŽƚ ŽŶůǇ ŝŶ ƚĞƌŵƐ ŽĨ ĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ ďƵƚ ĂůƐŽ ŝŶ ƚĞƌŵƐ ŽĨ ƌŝƐŬ. CFB funding liabilities are the
counterpart of AM assets, and AM liabilities (derivatives) are the counterpart of CFB assets.
In this system, two different financial intermediaries are crucial.
7
First is the Global Money
Dealer that takes care of the funding transfer, in effect mobilizing the customer capital held by the Asset
Manager to fund the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities held by the Capital Funding Bank. The
second is the Derivatives Dealer that takes care of the risk transfer, in effect mobilizing the risk capacity
of the customer capital to bear the risk in the RMBS. (Note that I adopt the accounting convention of
treating derivatives as contingent liabilities of the agent bearing the risk; since funding markets are short
term, long term fixed rate assets are risky.)
It should be emphasized that, by construction, both intermediaries are pure dealers holding
ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůǇ ͞ŵĂƚĐŚĞĚ ďŽŽŬ͟ and taking no net risky positions of their own. (They are Volcker-Rule
dealers, idealized pure market makers that do no proprietary trading.) The Global Money Dealers quote
buy and sell prices for money, while the derivative dealers quote buy and sell prices for term and credit

economics. My starting point instead is the place where the capital market and money market intersect, i.e. the
province of the intersection between financial economics and monetary economics.
7
My emphasis on the dealer function follows Hicks (1989), but see also Shaw (1950, p. 9) and Stigum and Crescenzi
(2007) who conceptualize banks as a specialized kind of security dealer. The secured deposits supplied by the
GMD are clearly different in kind from the bank deposits of standard monetary economics, as also the collateral
demand for those deposits coming from the Asset Manager. The idea of a Global Money Dealer focused on
funding transfer was inspired by the account of cross-border banking offered by Shin and Shin (2011). The idea of
a Derivatives Dealer focused on risk transfer was inspired by the account offered by BIS (2008).
7

spreads. Through arbitrage, the price of the underlying risky asset (RMBS) is implied by these dealer
prices, and vice versa.
In this market-based credit system, counterparty risk is handled by using collateral; all positions
are fully secured. Specifically, by some system of hypothecation and rehypothecation, RMBS collateral
flows to the Global Money Dealer to support money market funding, and then flows further to the Asset
Manager as security for his deposit.
8
Similarly, all derivatives exposures are secured by pre-funding of a
kind; the AM͛Ɛ ĚĞƉŽƐŝƚ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ GMD is sufficient to cover any losses from its derivative liabilities, and the
CFB͛Ɛ RMBS holding is sufficient to cover any losses from its derivative assets.
The purpose of this conceptualization is to abstract from solvency issues, and hence also from all
questions of capital adequacy. By construction, any valuation change in the ultimate risky assets held
by the Capital Funding Bank is matched by a valuation change in the customer capital that funds the
Asset Manager. In this stylized model, customer capital is the risk capital for the entire system; there is
no need for separate capitalization of the Capital Funding Bank, the Global Money Dealer, or the
Derivatives Dealer, since by construction all asset risk is transferred to the Asset Manager.
The purpose of thus abstracting from all solvency risk is to focus attention instead on liquidity
risk, and specifically on the role of the dealers in bearing that risk, and on the central bank as backstop
for those dealers. Suppose, for example, that the value of the RMBS falls by $10. Now the CFB has a
funding problem, since its posted RMBS collateral is no longer sufficient to support its borrowing from
the GMD. Aƚ ƚŚĞ ƐĂŵĞ ƚŝŵĞ͕ ƚŚĞ AM͛Ɛ ĚĞƌŝǀĂƚŝǀĞ ůŝĂďŝůŝƚǇ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐ ďǇ ΨϭϬ͕ ƌĞƋƵŝƌŝŶŐ ŝƚ ƚŽ ƉŽƐƚ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ
deposit collateral to the Derivative Dealer. What is apparently required to make the market-based
credit system work is a mechanism for shifting ƚŚĞ AM͛Ɛ deposit collateral to the credit of the CFB in
such a way as to make that collateral available to support continued borrowing from the GMD.

8
This way of thinking about secured lending was inspired by the account of Singh and Aitken (2010).
8

The way this plays out in balance sheets is shown in Figure 2a; note the credit expansion on the
balance sheet of the Derivative Dealer, a credit expansion that is secured by the aforementioned
transfer of collateral. If the valuation change is temporary then, when value returns to its previous level,
collateral will flow back in the opposite direction and the credit expansion will be cancelled. But if the
valuation change is permanent, then at some point losses are realized by actual payment, as shown in
Figure 2b. The Asset Manager pays $10 to the Derivative Dealer, who then pays the CFB, who then uses
the payment to reduce borrowing from the GMD. The net effect is a credit contraction on the balance
sheet of the Global Money Dealer, as money market funding contracts to the size of the underlying
capital value being funded.

[Insert Figures 2a and 2b about here]

In either case, 2a or 2b, the important point to emphasize is that the mechanism through which
fluctuation in the value of risky assets is absorbed by customer capital involves fluctuation in the size of
dealer balance sheets. And the mechanism that produces balance sheet fluctuation is the flow of
collateral and money payments. In Figures 2a and 2b, the payments system is assumed to operate
perfectly. But if it does not, there is clearly a lot of room for self-reinforcing liquidity spirals (as
Brunnermeier 2009).
For example, if for any reason the CFB were unable to top up the collateral for its money market
borrowing, it might be forced to liquidate some portion of its assets, so driving down their price even
more and worsening its own funding problem. Further, if it fails to receive additional collateral from
the CFB, the GMD would be unable to top up the collateral needed to support its own secured deposit
liabilities, and so might face a funding problem of its own. By construction, these are liquidity problems,
not solvency problems, hence the province of a central bank.
9

Alternatively, if for any reason the Asset Manager were unable (or even merely unwilling) to
post collateral for its derivative liability, the Derivative Dealer might be forced to close out the Asset
MĂŶĂŐĞƌ͛Ɛ ƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ, driving derivative ͞ŝŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞ͟ prices up and hence the implied RMBS price down
even more, so worsening the problem. Further, without additional collateral from the Asset Manager,
the Derivative Dealer will be unable to top up the collateral needed to support its derivative liability to
the CFB, and so might face a margin call of its own. Again by construction, these are liquidity problems,
not solvency problems, hence the province of the central bank.
Lender of last resort is one response to these problems. The central bank could lend to the
Global Money Dealer, so directly backstopping the liquidity of its deposit liabilities to the Asset Manager
while also indirectly supporting continued lending to the CFB. And if that is not enough, the central
bank could also lend to the Derivative Dealer, so directly backstopping the liquidity of its derivative
liabilities to the CFB while also indirectly supporting continued forbearance on collateral margin calls to
the Asset Manager.
But the focus on funding dealers may not be enough to stop the rout. Nothing in lender of last
resort prevents the Global Money Dealer from demanding additional collateral from the CFB anyway,
not only to cover current mark-to-market losses but also, even more, as safeguard against possible
ĨƵƚƵƌĞ ůŽƐƐĞƐ͘ ;lŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ ͞ŚĂŝƌĐƵƚƐ͟ ŽŶ RMBS collateral is one way to do this.
9
) And nothing in lender of
last resort prevents the Derivative Dealer from demanding additional collateral from the Asset Manager
anyway, not only to cover current mark-to-market losses on derivative positions but also, even more, as
safeguard against possible future losses. And nothing prevents the CFB or the Asset Manager from

responding to this pressure by attempting to liquidate their positions, so continuing the downward
liquidity spiral.
10

The key point is that, in a market-based credit system where all funding is secured by collateral,
the value of collateral plays a much more crucial role than in a bank-based credit system. In such a
system, therefore, a central bank liquidity backstop may need to embrace also dealer of last resort by
bidding, in the open market, for some subset of the risky assets that are serving as collateral. The
central bank could bid directly for RMBS, so directly supporting the value of CFB collateral, and indirectly
the value of Asset Manager derivative positions. Or it could offer directly for RMBS derivatives, so
directly supporting Asset Manager positions, and indirectly supporting the value of CFB collateral. Or it
could do a bit of both, so directly backstopping market liquidity in both derivative markets and the
underlying cash markets.
The point of such intervention, it is important to emphasize, is not so much to take assets (or
risk) off the market but rather to prevent a liquidity spiral from destabilizing the price of those assets
and so, as a consequence, undermining their use as collateral in the market-based credit system. As
with the Bagehot Rule, much of the impact of such intervention comes not from the actual positions
taken by the central bank but rather from the price support provided by trading options that may well
remain unexercised ĂŶĚ ƐŽ ŶĞǀĞƌ ƐŚŽǁ ƵƉ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ĐĞŶƚƌĂů ďĂŶŬ͛Ɛ ďĂůĂŶĐĞ ƐŚĞĞƚ.
By way of summary, here are three principles that seem to follow from this way of thinking:

1. Asset markets, not banking institutions; market liquidity, not funding liquidity; dealer of last
resort, not lender of last resort. This most important first principle reminds that market liquidity is the
more relevant concept for a market-based credit system, that market liquidity is normally supplied by

10
And of course nothing prevents that downward spiral from spilling over to the larger financial system, from
which we have been abstracting. See footnote 4.
11

dealers, and that the best way to support the dealer system in a crisis may be to support the markets in
which they deal by supporting key collateral values.
2. Outside spread, not inside spread. 8ĂŐĞŚŽƚ͛Ɛ Rule for funding liquidity emphasizes lending
freely but at a high price, the high price being his safeguard against what modern economists would call
moral hazard; only those in true need will borrow, and they will pay back as soon as they are able.
Analogously, a modern central bank rule for market liquidity should emphasize buying and selling freely
but at a wide spread around what price would be in more normal times.
3. Core assets, not periphery. Bagehot ĞŵƉŚĂƐŝǌĞĚ ůĞŶĚŝŶŐ ĂŐĂŝŶƐƚ ͞Ăůů ŐŽŽĚ ďĂŶŬŝŶŐ
ƐĞĐƵƌŝƚŝĞƐ͟ ǁŚŝĐŚ ŚĞ specifies as ͞what in ordinary times is reckoned a good securityͶon what is then
commonly pledged and easily convertible.͟ Note that Bagehot speaks of ordinary times, not crisis times,
but also not boom times. It is not the job of the central bank to make bad securities good, but only to
stop a liquidity spiral; it can do this most efficaciously by focusing its liquidity support operations on a
subset of good securities (rather than a subset of too-big-to-fail banks).

III. Conclusion
The crisis of 2007-2008 was a Bagehot moment, when the brave new world of market-based
credit suffered its first stress test, and the Fed had to go back to basics to find an adequate response.
What it found, and what I have labĞůĞĚ ͞ĚĞĂůĞƌ ŽĨ ůĂƐƚ ƌĞƐŽƌƚ͕͟ ĐĂŶ ďĞ ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚŽŽĚ as a natural extension
of Bagehot-style lender of last resort for the new market-based credit system. The transformation of
ƚŚĞ lĞĚ͛Ɛ ďĂůĂŶĐĞ ƐŚĞĞƚ͕ ƐŚŽǁŶ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĨŝƌƐƚ ƚǁŽ ƉĂŶĞůƐ ŽĨ Figure 3, brings out how much has changed.
The size of the balance sheet has tripled, but also its composition has changed.
The restatement of its current balance sheet in the third panel is intended to make clearer the
dimensions of the Fed͛s dealer-of-last-resort intervention, dimensions that remain on its balance sheet
even today. By adding short-term T-bill holding and long-term T-bond holdings to both sides of the
12

balance sheet, and rearranging, three fundamental risk exposures can be distinguished: a kind of
overnight index swap (first line), a kind of interest rate swap (second line), and a kind of credit default
swap (third line). In all three dimensions, the Fed is operating to support market liquidity, much as our
idealized Global Money Dealer and Derivative Dealer do on their balance sheets. In all three
dimensions, the Fed can be seen as adapting to its new role as liquidity backstop for the emerging new
market-based credit system.